Massachusetts
Veterans home COVID-19 outbreak results in $58M settlement
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) — A federal judge has approved a nearly $58 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed in response to the deaths of dozens of veterans who contracted COVID-19 at a Massachusetts veterans home.
“It was with heavy hearts that we got to the finish line on this case,” Michael Aleo, an attorney for the plaintiffs said Tuesday, the day after the settlement was approved by a judge in U.S. District Court in Springfield.
The coronavirus outbreak at the Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke in the spring of 2020 was one of the deadliest outbreaks at a long-term care facility in the U.S.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said 84 residents died and roughly the same number were sickened. A total of 164 plaintiffs include veterans who tested positive for the disease and survived as well as the families of those who died. Several of the veterans who survived COVID-19 have died of other causes since the lawsuit was filed, Aleo said.
“The families are thankful that we’ve been able to bring this case to a conclusion,” Aleo said. “Trying the case would have taken years.”
The original settlement amount announced in May was $56 million, but that was increased to about $58 million with the addition of three additional plaintiffs, he said.
The families of veterans who died will receive a minimum of $400,000 each, while veterans who contracted the disease and survived will receive a minimum of $10,000 under the settlement’s terms.
Aleo expects the settlement to be disbursed within four to eight weeks.
The defendants in the case were four former leaders at the state-run home and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the state agency that oversees the facility. With the approval of the settlement, which is being paid by the state, claims against all five were dropped.
An investigation by a former federal prosecutor hired by Gov. Charlie Baker found that management at the home made several “utterly baffling” decisions that allowed the virus to spread almost unchecked.
Alabama
Man sentenced to death over jury’s wish seeks execution stay
MONTGOMERY, Ala (AP) — Lawyers on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the upcoming execution of an Alabama man who was sentenced to death over the jury’s wishes — a punishment he could not receive today since states no longer allow judicial override.
Kenneth Eugene Smith is set to be executed Thursday for the 1988 murder-for-hire killing of a pastor’s wife. A judge in 1996 sentenced Smith to death despite a jury’s 11-1 recommendation of life imprisonment. Alabama in 2017 became the last state to abolish the practice of letting judges override a jury’s sentencing recommendation in death penalty cases, but the change was not retroactive and therefore did not affect death row prisoners like Smith.
“If Mr. Smith’s trial had occurred today, he could not have been eligible for execution. Nor would he be subject to execution anywhere else in the United States, as every state that once permitted the practice of judicial override has abandoned it,” his attorneys wrote in the request for a stay.
Smith’s attorneys asked justices to stay the execution to review whether the death sentence, imposed over the jury’s wishes, violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The filing came days after the Alabama Supreme Court declined to postpone Smith’s scheduled execution. The Alabama attorney general’s office is expected to oppose the stay request.
Prosecutors said Smith was one of two men who were each paid $1,000 to kill Sennett on behalf of her husband, the Rev. Charles Sennett, who was deeply in debt and wanted to collect on insurance.
Elizabeth Sennett was found dead on March 18, 1988 in the couple’s home on Coon Dog Cemetery Road in Colbert County. The coroner testified that the victim had been stabbed eight times in the chest and once on each side of the neck. Charles Stennett killed himself a week later when the murder investigation started to focus on him as a suspect, according to court documents.
Smith maintained it was the other man who stabbed Elizabeth Sennett. John Forrest Parker, the other man who prosecutors said was paid to kill Elizabeth Sennett, was executed in 2010. “I’m sorry. I don’t ever expect you to forgive me. I really am sorry,” Parker said to the victim’s sons before he was put to death.
Smith was initially convicted in 1989, and a jury voted 10-2 to recommend a death sentence, which a judge imposed. His conviction was overturned on appeal in 1992. He was retried and convicted again in 1996. This time, the jury recommended a life sentence by a vote of 11-1, but a judge overrode the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Smith to death.
Alabama has faced accusations of botching its last scheduled executions. In September, the state called off the execution of inmate Alan Miller because of difficulty accessing his veins. Miller said in a court filing that prison staff poked him with needles for over an hour and at one point, they left him hanging vertically on a gurney before announcing they were stopping for the night. Prison officials said they stopped because they were facing a midnight deadline to get the execution underway. The state is seeking a new execution date for Miller.
Kansas
Voters refuse to increase Legislature’s power over agencies
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas voters have narrowly rejected a proposal to curb the power of the governor and other officials over how the state regulates businesses, protects people’s health and preserves the environment.
The Associated Press called the election on Tuesday, a week after Election Day.
Voters defeated a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would have made it easier for lawmakers to overturn regulations written by state agencies and boards under the control of the governor and others in the executive branch. At issue were rules as varied as how elk hunting permits are distributed and which shots are required for children attending schools.
The election came three months after voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to give lawmakers authority to more tightly regulate or ban abortion.
The latest measure would have allowed lawmakers to suspend or revoke regulations with a simple majority vote in both chambers.
The Legislature has a joint committee that reviews regulations, but if lawmakers object to one, their most effective tactic is to object loudly and push the agency to back off. They also can pass a bill overturning the rule, but the governor can veto it.
Business groups and advocates of smaller government viewed the measure as reining in unelected bureaucrats. But abortion rights advocates saw the measure as an attempted power grab by far-right legislators.
